Yeah, and for the players to revolt against the selectors every so often.

And I'm out of economic theories; haven't got to Institutional Economics yet and I cbf applying Smith and Ricardo to it.

Actually, Ricardo would probably ask India to provide the middle order batsmen, Pakistan the left arm quicks, South Africa the fieldsmen, England the openers, the West Indies the right arm quicks and Australia the top order. Makes for a more efficient team.

Yeah, in Ricardo's world, there would be no international cricket. Just club cricket.

Originally Posted by LongHopCassidy

Malthus would be aghast that we were using pieces of wood, leather and huge spaces that could be used for more productive ends.

Malthus would be aghast we were 7 billion people large, and still going strong
Not to mention a cool 1 billion of those people addicted to the pieces of wood, leather and huge spaces.

~ Do you think I care for you so little that betraying me would make a difference ~

If the ICC ratings are used as the gauge, then once the ICC formula for ratings become known (which I am guessing is not the most sophisticated equation in history), it merely becomes a question of this forum acting like some sort of a low-yield bond mutual fund. There is no volatility to speak of. No risk premiums, and no beta values per se. It will be boring! Only derivatives can spice it up.

If the ICC ratings are used as the gauge, then once the ICC formula for ratings become known (which I am guessing is not the most sophisticated equation in history), it merely becomes a question of this forum acting like some sort of a low-yield bond mutual fund. There is no volatility to speak of. No risk premiums, and no beta values per se. It will be boring! Only derivatives can spice it up.

You are paying for a players future ICC ranking, which depends on a players output. Whether the formula is known or not is irrelevant. Just like microsoft, I know how they generate earnings but can only guess at demand for their products.

If you can predict rankings, you'll make a ton of "money" - no different from firms. The volatility might be quite high despite relatively smooth rankings, as with firms (dividends are very smooth).

Derivatives are simply a way of leveraging, but you'd get the same effect if you allowed borrowing.

In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.

You are paying for a players future ICC ranking, which depends on a players output. Whether the formula is known or not is irrelevant. Just like microsoft, I know how they generate earnings but can only guess at demand for their products.

If you can predict rankings, you'll make a ton of "money" - no different from firms. The volatility might be quite high despite relatively smooth rankings, as with firms (dividends are very smooth).

Derivatives are simply a way of leveraging, but you'd get the same effect if you allowed borrowing.

The problem is that the way the ICC ratings are handled is too smooth and not volatile at all, especially because there are no external disruptions of any kind (debutantes excluded). It is not too difficult to predict where most players are going to be ranked a week from now. Derivatives are interesting because then you can actually bet today on the players' ratings 6 months or 1 year (or more) from now. Way more fun than holding on to a mutual fund type mix of players week after week, only unloading one or two based on a test (if there is a test).

P.S. You might know how Microsoft generates its earnings, but there is no way in hell that you know how the whole technology sector is going to play out by the end of the week, not even 30% unless you are a big shark.

The problem is that the way the ICC ratings are handled is too smooth and not volatile at all, especially because there are no external disruptions of any kind (debutantes excluded). It is not too difficult to predict where most players are going to be ranked a week from now. Derivatives are interesting because then you can actually bet today on the players' ratings 6 months or 1 year (or more) from now. Way more fun than holding on to a mutual fund type mix of players week after week, only unloading one or two based on a test (if there is a test).

P.S. You might know how Microsoft generates its earnings, but there is no way in hell that you know how the whole technology sector is going to play out by the end of the week, not even 30% unless you are a big shark.

Firms' earning are also known relatively accurately on a shorter basis, and if very well known the market value is relatively stable. Surprise announcements (reg-fd) are like test match events; they update the information set - though some of us are better at predicting the outcomes than others (see CC) and will do better on average.

One point though - many firms are levered, the players are not. However, you could easily have CW's IPO chief add leverage and even adjust it as time went on.

Derivatives are fine for speculators, but are a red herring for the market as a whole (ZNS, can be very well dynamically hedged with cash and player stock)

Edit: Given MS has unpriced risk, determining the sector's future as a whole is probably easier, not harder.

Firms' earning are also known relatively accurately on a shorter basis, and if very well known the market value is relatively stable. Surprise announcements (reg-fd) are like test match events; they update the information set - though some of us are better at predicting the outcomes than others (see CC) and will do better on average.

One point though - many firms are levered, the players are not. However, you could easily have CW's IPO chief add leverage and even adjust it as time went on.

Derivatives are fine for speculators, but are a red herring for the market as a whole (ZNS, can be very well dynamically hedged with cash and player stock)

Edit: Given MS has unpriced risk, determining the sector's future as a whole is probably easier, not harder.

Might not be too bad. Keeping track of who owns what percentage of a player's stock would be a nightmare for the moderator(s) though.